Amongst anarchist activist groups, there is a tendency for groups to eventually splinter due to a disagreement. If the disagreement lies in implementation of a theory (aka, the praxis), then I think this splintering is largely a good thing (or at worst neutral) and should be encouraged. Most importantly the groups should support one another during the splintering as much as is comfortable. The "us" vs "them" competitive mentality should only appear when it is constructive rather than destructive.
When an anarchist group is too large to be an affinity group, it should split. If it doesn't happen, it should be intentionally discussed. If it is ignored and the group is grown too large to support consensus decision making, serious disagreements can occur that cannot be solved, whereafter I believe the splintering of the group into two should be encouraged and supported. It's better to have two mutual groups than to cast off disagreeing individuals and be left with only one group. Diversity is strength.
A few caveats of course: if two groups that splintered from the same parent are undergoing the same operation in the same space on the same day, discussions should be made so as to resolve this issue. For example, if an protest was to occur on a particular day in a particular suburb, and one group wants to smash windows and the other doesn't (hence the splinter), efforts should be made to figure out if it's possible to have two separate protests, such that two actions end up taking place perhaps on two separate streets.
The other caveat involves disagreements in theory. This can be more tricky and there's no hard line to decide when supportive splintering is inappropriate. Of course, if an anarchist group is torn on whether or not to exclude non-white people from their vision of the future, then I wouldn't expect the non-racists to actively support the other group in an act of splintering.
Page last edited on 6 May 2024.